INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK ( BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP , A.M. AND SHRI P. S. CHAUDHURY, J .M .) M.A. NO. 21 / CTK/2014 : ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009 - 10 ( ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.302/CTK/13 ) ANIL KUMAR CHOUBEY, MAYURBHANJ - V S - ITO, WARD - 1, BARIPADA (APPLICANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI D.K.SHETH , A.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUVENDU DUTTA , DR : O R D E R : PER SHRI P.M.JAGTAP , AM BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION , THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE ALLEGED TO HAVE CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 30.05.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO.302/CTK/2013. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND FURTHER REITERATED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFOR E US, THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) AS RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT VS - ADDL. CI T, WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN OTHER CASES, WHILE DECIDING THE SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) WAS DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA GRAPH NO.5.1 OF ITS ORDER DATED 30.05.2014, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 2 5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. WE NOTED THAT THE DECISION IN MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT VS. ADDL. CIT, 20 TAXM ANN.COM 244 (SUPRA) RENDERED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIKANDAR KHAN N.TUNVAR, 357 ITR 312 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT SEC. 40(A)(IA) WOULD C OVER NOT ONLY AMOUNTS WHICH ARE PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH OF A PARTICULAR YEAR BUT ALSO WHICH ARE PAYABLE AT ANY TIME DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR . SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE, 33 TAXMAN.COM 250 (CAL.). THE HON'BLE P&H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MILK SPECIALTIES LTD. VS. CIT, 21 TAXMANN.COM 327 HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT PAYMENT MADE FOR HIRING OF VEHICLES WITHOUT DEDUCTING TDS U/S 194C ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS EXPE NDITURE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 40 (A)(IA). IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 194C WERE NOT APPLICABLE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DISALLOWING THE SUM OF RS.. \ 1 0,13,628/ - . 2.1 AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FR OM THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE DECISION OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPORT ( SUPRA ) WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL BUT THE SAME WAS CONSCIOUSLY NOT FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THREE HIGH COURTS , WHEREIN A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS THUS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND DISMISS THE SAME. 3 . IN THE RESULT , THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUN CED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SD/ - SD/ - ( P.S.CHAUDHURY ) ( P.M.JAGTAP ) JUDICIAL MEMB ER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 30 /10/2015 TALUKDAR,SR.PS 3 COPY TO : 1. ANIL KUMAR CHOUBEY, WARD NO.9, RAIRANGPUR, MAYURBHANJ, ODISHA 2. ITO, WARD - 1, BARIPADA 3. CIT(A) - 4. CIT 5. D. R., ITAT, TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTR AR I.T.A.T., CUTTACK